"Supporting" the fight for ideals you do not share. Revolt of national pride in media?

Think about patriotism. Even if people disagree with the things done in the name of their country, would they be able to object this country's position on the issue in public? Would they be able to criticize strategic communication efforts on the part of the government? What if your son or daughter is serving in the army of this country, fighting for the wrong ideals? (From your standpoint, that is).

In their series of articles about patriotic mothers and patriotism, Karen L. Slattery and Ana C. Garner, while elaborating on the portraits of patriotic mothers, are not far away from the conclusion that patriotism, alongside nationalism, could also be considered a form of civil religion. Dying for your country is considered to be a good thing for the pride of your family (here, death is depicted as one of the ways to be involved into the "institutionalized set of beliefs about nation's past, present, and future"). Dead soldiers get commemorated with awards and titles (here, patriotism is rewarded with a specific set of rituals).

The media as a promoter of the sacred qualities of beliefs and rituals contributes to strengthening the links between patriotism as a feeling and patriotism as civil religion. In general, the mainstream media portrayed the mothers of soldiers as patriotic, as women who followed the patriotic line of thought promoted by the government. At the same time, contrary to the general belief, constructed by the mainstream media, while mothers who had their children serving in the army were supportive of their children, their opinions on the war varied.

Think about patriotism again. Think about armies that fight for the purpose of serving their country. The war of the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Fighting the threat of weapons" was one of the justifications provided, even though none were actually found. The war of Iraq vs. Iran in the late 1980s and early 1990s. "Fighting for the Islamic Republic of Iran" was one of the justifications provided, even though starting from 1982, Iran regained all territories lost previously to Iraq, but the war still continued until 1988. However, dying for the country was considered good for the pride of the family, according to the official position of the government of Islamic Republic, supported by the mainstream media. If the soldiers were killed in the war, they were martyred. Martyrdom after fighting for one's country could be considered the pinnacle of patriotism mixed with religion. Here, civil religion as patriotism, comes very close to the state religion. The opinions on martyrdom within Iranian society vary, but the depiction of patriotic feelings connected to martyrdom whenever possible is the mainstream media response to this issue.

The question pops up: What other feelings could provoke the development of phenomenon into civil religion? What does it take for something which was considered to be civil religion to be developed into religion?

Revolt as religion. No, it is not blasphemy.

"Civil revolt as religion" sounds more controversial than "revolt as civil religion," is not it? The latter has more depth to it, whereas the former is a cautious statement, which would probably be supported by Robert N. Bellah  who views revolution as civil religion mostly because of the revolutionary fervor of the participants. The fervor that they express in their struggle for ideals, the fervor that is very similar to the passion of people who belong to religious groups. Civil religion is connected to the utmost core of protesters' ideology and that is why, for some people, it is so much stronger than any religion could ever be, despite the word "civil" that is placed in front of it and that softens it.

"Revolt," "rebellion," "violent conflict"  - all of these words can be substitutes for “revolution.” Revolution in the minds of the people who fight for justice, rebellion against the wrongdoings of the enemy to your own nation, revolt of pride when dying for your own country, even if you do not believe that the cause you are fighting for can be justified by anything. Carolyn Marvin explains why nationalism could be considered a civil religion: Soldiers died when trying to perch a flag atop the most important building within the enemy territory. In medieval ages, many knights also ended up dead only because, when rushing into the battle, they were carrying the flag of their regimen.

To “picture perfect” the raising of the flag on top of the Iwo Jima Mountain, several staged attempts were made, making a photo from Iwo Jima famous.

The raising of the Soviet flag over Reichstag was also a pinnacle moment for the Soviet Union. Original photos were digitally distorted not to show some objects (e.g., two pairs of watches on the hand of one of the soldiers, who, apparently, took them as his trophies from the dead bodies of his enemies). 

The name "civil religion" was invented, I assume, not to offend the church, the true "owner" of anything connected to the word "religion." Sometimes, however, the things done in the name of religion match the things done in the name of civil religion. Examples?